Academic and Online Publishing
Posted by: Fats in: Dialogues, Fatima Lasay & Trevor Batten > Media and Process
Below are interview questions and my replies on the subject matter of “online publishing” sent to me a few days ago by a staff member of an academic community newsletter. While I am no longer a member of the academia, I was approached more as a member of the editorial board of the Leonardo Electronic Almanac.
I have kept my replies to the interview brief and concise, intending to touch on issues that I consider important. If you are interested in expanding the dialogues, you are most welcome to do so.
1. What to you is online publishing? What areas does it cover? How is it different from traditional print (not just in terms of medium, but in terms of methodology)? What are its advantages over the other (print)?
The implementation of the online system dates back to hypertext technology research at Stanford Labs in 1965, with the “NLS Journal” as probably the first online journal. In this context, “online publishing” today could simply be an industry term for one of the numerous commercial and non-commercial exploitations of hypertext technology and the online system.
“fineArt Forum”, for example, started in 1988 as an experiment by the Leonardo Art Science and Technology journal on the potentials of hypertext (and later “hypermedia”) technology. In 1992, Leonardo inaugurated the “Leonardo Electronic Almanac” as the electronic arm of the print journal. Evidently, sending and receiving information through the electronic networks presented new advantages to the print publishing world, especially when the electronic network expanded from local network emails to the World Wide Web.
2. What specific materials can be published online? Are you free to publish just about anything? Who makes the distinction? Who filters?
The “Leonardo Electronic Almanac” (LEA) publishes writing by artists and scholars about their work in art, science and technology. LEA especially gives opportunities for young artists and scholars in the field. As with any academic publishing system, we have an editorial team and external consultants who work together with readers and authors in determining the content and direction of LEA.
3. What are the potentials of online publishing in an academic community? What is your view regarding moves to widen scholarship through online media? Is it even possible?
It was the academic and research community that pioneered the online system and online publishing over 40 years ago. So any active academic community involved in dynamic debates whether through face to face dialogues, academic papers and journals, field and laboratory research or exhibitions, should know that online systems have the significant
potential of expanding the debates within and outside the community.
The technology has been there and has been used for decades; the most powerful obstacle to widening scholarship in the academic community is not technical but political.
4. Do we follow the same rules of strict scholarship standards in online journals? How is this made possible?
It is not really very difficult to map the print paradigm to the online. At LEA, we follow the same standards established by the Leonardo print journal, a pioneer in the field of art, science and technology when it started publishing nearly 40 years ago. However, I think the real challenge is how the online system re-defines not only the print paradigm but also the very basis and standards of scholarship as they have been shaped for centuries by the “Gutenberg revolution.”
Many have a media-based bias towards what accounts for good scholarship and research; specifically, many in the academic community still believe that only the printed book and journal qualifies for good scholarship and a reputable venue for publication. But the fact is, many born-digital monographs are as and even more intellectually vigorous as those seen in print.
5. What about the dangers or difficulties commonly encountered? Are such issues as plagiarism, copyright concerns and intellectual dishonesty, valid concerns? Do we follow a certain rules of practice or ethic?
LEA, as with the print journal, employs the blind peer review process. But we know that peer review is a very subjective process, although it has been used over the last century in judging the quality of research. There are principles of conduct in the peer review process in research and scholarship (i.e. competency, security, effectiveness, responsiveness and responsibility, constructiveness, etc.), and in some countries, peer review may be governed by federal regulations.
But given the biases and limitations of peer review, I think that the peer review process should be re-defined, in particular, through the mechanism of instantaneous feedback, back tracking, versioning and (machine-readable) copyleft licenses, enabled by online systems. The electronic network should also allow the wider intellectual community to participate in the peer review process and not simply a selected number of “experts.”
6. Finally, what advise would you give to colleagues in the profession or students who are planning to venture into online publishing?
Let us try to work towards genuine dialogue and openness even if there are emotional and political restraints imposed upon us by the academic establishment. The mechanism of feedback is tremendously useful in the blogging community, for example, and despite the current frenzy, we should be able to use it creatively and intelligently.
July 26th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
1. What to you is online publishing? What areas does it cover? How is it different from traditional print (not just in terms of medium, but in terms of methodology)? What are its advantages over the other (print)?
As in all discussions -having a good definition is an important first step. In the case of such a possibly diffuse subject as “on-line publishing” establishing an exact definition might be difficult. So one is probably reduced to evaluating and comparing a number of viewpoints based on the different experiences of various “players” in the context of their role in the activity.
Perhaps these viewpoints fall into the following main categories -some of which may well contradict viewpoints in other categories:
a: Technical
b: Social
c: Commercial
d. Personal
Technically, Hypertext and hypermedia, the ability to link key words and images to other material (sounds, texts, images, etc.) are key innovative parts of the process -both from the viewpoint of the “author” and the “reader”. Through hypermedia, arguments and concepts can be contextualized in ways that are more efficient than the traditional footnotes in books -simply because the additional material is available at the touch of a (mouse) button, assuming the reader is on-line.
However, for the author, perhaps a really important innovation was much earlier -with the development of (off-line) text processing -which allowed deleting, cutting and pasting of text segments with relative ease -so that the writers thoughts could be freely rearranged without difficulty.
On the other hand, perhaps the importance of search engines to find key words should not be forgotten. Although results are sometimes trivial and often commercial -a web search can often produce fascinating and unexpected results.
Socially, the system can work both ways: socially or geographically isolated “readers” can (provided they have access to the internet) access a wealth of material not previously provided locally. As “publishers” they are free (as long as they can rent web space) to publish whatever they please (provided their host does not object). Of course, this means an increase in pornography, commercial and intellectual trivia, political propaganda, etc. -but it also provides an outlet for ideas that are potentially valuable but were previously difficult to publish. Perhaps the publishing of Galileo’s book in (commercial) Holland could be seen as a historical example. Nowadays, “publishing” is not limited to print -one can publish text, (moving) image, sound and even computer programmes via the internet. The potential advantages of contact and collaboration between people in different social groups and locations (in different time zones) around the world should also not be underestimated (but perhaps not overestimated either -human communication remains a complex problem).
Commercially, the world is apparently currently involved in a battle involving the re-feudalisation of the world by global commercial companies. In this context the commercial companies seem determined to “lock in” their customers so that they are only able to use the goods and services provided by their company. This is a particularly dangerous development -which unfortunately, seems to be propagated by many intellectuals who rely on commercial services to provide technology which they otherwise would not understand. Although this may seem empowering in the short term -in the long term it is disempowering. Even more dangerous is when governments feel themselves obliged to satisfy the needs of the commercial companies -often to the cost of their own citizens. Unfortunately, the demands of modern global capitalism seem to be forcing governments to behave more like commercial companies.
Personally, as a pioneer artist/programmer, I am opposed (for cultural philosophical reasons) to the conceptual paradigm that sees computer technology as “information” and not as “process”. However, on a simple pragmatic level -I must admit that internet technology has been most useful in breaking through my own isolation and even helps to promote ideas which are perhaps even contrary to its underlying conceptual model.
2. What specific materials can be published online? Are you free to publish just about anything? Who makes the distinction? Who filters?
Presumably the general answer to this is that the process is extremely context dependant. Each “publisher” can make their own rules (within the context of established or imposed international rules and practices). If any organisation or individual is free to publish, then the rules of publishing are more likely to come from that organisation or individual themselves than from the internet. On the other hand, one must also be aware that, for the insiders, information published on the net is extremely transparent. Internet providers are generally required by (local) law to collaborate (or at least assist) the security forces if required. Messages can usually be traced -and indeed a wide range of information regarding those reading an internet site can be made available to the person who sets up the site. On the retrieval side, many governments have tried to limit information available via the net -but it seems that some people are perhaps equally clever at circumventing these limitations. In the meantime, as long as a general lack of direct knowledge of the internet drives individuals to commercial services (including computer operating systems Internet providers, webhosts and publishing portals) -then the commercial companies will maintain a large element of control.
However, it may well be that the greater the control over the system -the less successful the system will be (commercially, intellectually and politically). The collapse of the Soviet empire may well be a path being followed by consumer capitalism and its supporters.
3. What are the potentials of online publishing in an academic community? What is your view regarding moves to widen scholarship through online media? Is it even possible?
Yes -unfortunately, the academic community seems to have squandered its knowledge base and allowed the technology to become commercialised in such ways that it is now paying to use software systems that should be freely available.
I also feel forced to add that another major difficulty with the academic community is (paradoxically) intellectual and is, to a certain extent, a fundamental structural problem arising out of the very nature of the academic system itself: For very good (academic) reasons -before it can be accepted by the academic community, new knowledge needs to be tested against the standards of knowledge and belief current within the community. This ensures that each step taken is valid within the academic context -but unfortunately this also makes this “knowledge” vulnerable to all the problems inherent in any tautological situation. There is simply no way to know how valid (in real world terms) the academic knowledge really is. Considering that one important and valuable aspect of academic knowledge is that it always expanding and mutating as an inherent part of the process -logically, there is no reason to assume that academic knowledge at any one point in time is correct. Indeed, there are many historical examples (from the belief in a physical “ether” to tectonic plate theory -via phrenology) where the academic community plainly got things wrong with respect to modern insights.
Previously, academic communities tended to preserve their own intellectual traditions -with different focuses on different aspects of any one given subject being taught and studied. The rise of internationalism (supported by the internet and fueled by the commercialisation of education) tends to undermine this -with scholars around the world in almost daily contact, sometimes increasing but sometimes reducing the complexity of the argumentation surrounding a subject.
In the context of the tautological nature of knowledge -which can be both an advantage and a hindrance to innovative thinking, the easy availability of non-academic (research) material via the internet could be of great importance in breaking through the tautological nature of academic knowledge.
4. Do we follow the same rules of strict scholarship standards in online journals? How is this made possible?
Yes -this is an extension of the problem discussed above. It is perhaps becoming more of a problem as art college education becomes more universally part of the university system (and therefore subject to theoretical and doctrinal evaluation and control). Perhaps one could see artists (and free thinking intellectuals) as part of an “avant-guard” who play with ideas long before they can be academically tried and tested.
Within the open source community, computer programmes are often rated as “experimental”, “testing” and “stable”…. perhaps social software (in the form of our knowledge and belief systems) should also be subject to such a grading -although care should be taken that (even under programmes) “stable” does not always mean in practice what it does in theory.
5. What about the dangers or difficulties commonly encountered? Are such issues as plagiarism, copyright concerns and intellectual dishonesty, valid concerns? Do we follow a certain rules of practice or ethic?
“LEA, as with the print journal, employs the blind peer review process. But we know that peer review is a very subjective process, although it has been used over the last century in judging the quality of research. There are principles of conduct in the peer review process in research and scholarship (i.e. competency, security, effectiveness, responsiveness and responsibility, constructiveness, etc.), and in some countries, peer review may be governed by federal regulations.”
“But given the biases and limitations of peer review, I think that the peer review process should be re-defined, in particular, through the mechanism of instantaneous feedback, back tracking, versioning and (machine-readable) copyleft licenses, enabled by online systems. The electronic network should also allow the wider intellectual community to participate in the peer review process and not simply a selected number of ‘experts.’”
Yes -as an artist, I’ve never really felt happy with Leonardo -simply because it seems to over-intellectualise the material it deals with. In my experience, this “distorts” the content and reduces its (artistic) value. In fact, it seems to me that the main function of Leonardo, is to establish intellectual property claims to the ideas that are published. This means that, outside the academic career structure, Leonardo has little real value. It is also too expensive for general public use outside institutions. In some cases Leonardo might even be dangerous on several levels: Those publishing an idea might not be those who originated it, while those who did might have no access to the publishing system. Secondly, academics prefer to rely on academically accepted ideas -and so the ideas published can easily become part of a dogma that is then propagated through the education system, thus creating a self justifying proffecy which excludes other viewpoints.
6. Finally, what advise would you give to colleagues in the profession or students who are planning to venture into online publishing?
“Let us try to work towards genuine dialogue and openness even if there are emotional and political restraints imposed upon us by the academic establishment. The mechanism of feedback is tremendously useful in the blogging community, for example, and despite the current frenzy, we should be able to use it creatively and intelligently.”
Yes. Indeed, the principle of feedback seems to be so poorly understood by the dominant culture which has developed the technology that I fear the problem lies not in the technology but in the lack of human skills in exchanging and evaluating information and knowledge. Concepts such as universal “objectivity” are (in my personal experience) damaging to the understanding and exchange of ideas and concepts that are not familiar to those confronted by them. In this context, developing an understanding of “feedback” via on-line publishing (and perhaps other methods) may well be the most important future challenge for the academic community -and maybe the world.